1. The petition received by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,
dated September 9, 1987, to the effect that:

On June 29, 1987, three persons working for the Bella Vista Ranch, Guadalupe
canton, Apopa, El Salvador, were taken by soldiers attached to the First
Infantry Brigade stationed at San Carlos Base, San Salvador. The cases
are as follows:

Francisco Hernandez Quintanilla, 31 years of age, married, a hired hand
on the ranch in question, whose habitual domicile was in Las Delicias Canton
in the jurisdiction of Apopa. His mother, Estebana Hernandez, was a witness
when he was seized; in a sworn statement made before the non governmental
Commission on Human Rights of El Salvador, she stated that at the San Carlos
Base, there were conflicting reports on his seizure.

One soldier, a family acquaintance, hinted that he was there. Letters
were sent to Colonel Oscar Campos Anaya, Commandant of the Headquarters
of the First Infantry Brigade, to inquire about Hernandez Quintanilla's
seizure, but without result.

On July 1 and July 9, petitions of habeas corpus were filed, but without
result.

The most notable fact is that on July 2, COPREFA (Salvadoran Armed Service
Press Committee) issued a press release reporting that Hernandez Quintanilla
and two others taken at that same place on that same date, had been kidnapped
by guerrillas.

Juan Armando Martinez, age 52, who was living with someone and working
on the Bella Vista ranch, was taken away by the same soldiers who had taken
Hernandez Quintanilla on June 29. Numerous witnesses and other workers
on the ranch watched as he was taken away. A number of military bases and
political organizations denied that he was being held. A petition of habeas
corpus was filed on July 9, but without result. A COPREFA press release
dated July 2 reported that he was taken by guerrillas.

Jose Antonio Zarpate Juarez, age 45, who was living with someone and
working at the ranch as a clerk, was seized on June 29 by armed elements
in civilian attire, who later joined up with the soldiers from the First
Infantry Brigade.

All those working on the ranch witnessed his being taken. In a sworn
statement, his longtime companion gave the details of his seizure and of
her futile inquiries with military posts and political organizations in
El Salvador. On July 9, a petition of habeas corpus was filed with the
Supreme Court of Justice, as in the previous cases. The Armed Service says
that Zarpate Juarez was kidnapped by guerrillas (...);

2. That in a note dated October 21, 1987, the Commission began processing
this case and asked the Government of El Salvador to supply the pertinent
information on the facts reported in that communication and any other information
that would show that the remedies under domestic law had been exhausted
in the case in question; the Commission told the Government that it had
90 days in which to answer that request;

3. That on July 11, 1988, the Commission again asked the Government
of El Salvador for information on the investigations being conducted into
the instant case, and set a 30-day period for the Government's response;

4. That in November 1988, the Government of El Salvador replied, reporting
that:

Under No. 1631-Mc-87, the CDH has on record the measures taken to investigate
the apprehension of Juan Armando Martinez Cano, Jose Antonio Zarpate Juarez,
and Francisco Hernandez (...) who, at around 9:30 a.m. on June 29, 1987,
were apprehended at the Bella Vista Ranch by a group of approximately eight,
heavily armed individuals in civilian dress. They took them away on foot,
headed for the road from Ayutuxtepeque to Mejicanos. Miss Blanca Estela
Morales Martinez, the daughter of Mr. Martinez Cano, reported what had
happened. She had heard the news reports put out by the Armed Service Press
Committee (COPREFA) to the effect that the individuals in question had
been kidnapped by terrorists, which she said was false. On the day the
men were taken, she saw a large number of Army troops in the lower reaches
of the ranch; some were changing out of their camouflage fatigues into
civilian clothing. This Commission made inquiries to ascertain the whereabouts
of the men, but thus far has found nothing.

5. That on May 3, 1989, the petitioner sent additional information and
observations on the Government's reply, which were forwarded to the authorities
of El Salvador on June 21, 1989, with 30 days in which to send in its observations.
The pertinent parts of the information supplied by the petitioner read
as follows:

All of the evidence points to the fact that troopers from the First
Infantry Brigade of the Armed Force, in civilian dress and backed up by
troopers in uniform, kidnapped the three men; around the time the first
two were taken, the workers on the Bella Vista Ranch saw members of the
First Infantry Brigade of the National Army in the vicinity of the coffee
groves; one witness said that when the men in civilian dress took the kidnapped
men away, they were followed by uniformed soldiers; people in the vicinity
say that the First Infantry Brigade frequents that particular spot. Moreover,
when relatives of Francisco Hernandez Quintanilla went to the headquarters
of the First Infantry Brigade asking for information about Mr. Hernandez
Quintanilla's legal situation, they were told that their relative was being
held there; later that same day, however, another soldier contradicted
this report, and denied that he was being held there. The three men have
not appeared to date; various inquiries to ascertain his whereabouts have
turned up nothing.

In its brief reply on this case, the Government alludes to a report
put out by the Armed Force Press Committee (COPREFA) that states that the
three were "kidnapped by terrorists," a version that relatives
dismiss. According to the government Human Rights Commission, it "made
inquiries to ascertain the whereabouts of the men, but thus far has found
nothing." It does not specify the nature of the inquiries conducted
(...);

6. That in communications dated February 12, 1990, March 22, 1990, November
13, 1990, and finally, January 17, 1991, the Commission repeatedly asked
the Government of El Salvador to forward its observations, but has yet
to receive any reply.

7. At its 79th session, the Commission adopted Report N 13/91, which
was dispatched to the Government of El Salvador so that it might formulate
whatever observations its deemed appropriate, within three months of the
date of dispatch. The report indicated that if the case was not settled
by the Government, or submitted by it to the Court, the Commission would
decide whether to publish the report.

CONSIDERING:

1. That the Commission is competent to hear the present case inasmuch
as it involves violations of rights recognized in the American Convention
on Human Rights--Article 4 on the right to life, Article 7 on the right
to personal liberty, and Article 25 on the right to judicial protection--as
provided under Article 44 of that Convention, of which El Salvador is a
State Party.

2. That the petition satisfies the formal requirements for admissibility
as set forth in the American Convention on Human Rights and in the Regulations
of the Commission.

3. That the petition is not pending settlement in any other international
proceeding and is not a restatement of a previous petition that the Commission
has already examined.

4. That in the instant case, the petitioner has not been given effective
protection by the competent organs, as evidenced by a number of facts,
among them the following: the petitions of habeas corpus filed with the
Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador produced no results; and in its
reply of November 1988, the Government itself, through its Human Rights
Commission, stated that it "made inquiries to ascertain the whereabouts
of the men, but thus far has found nothing." Therefore, the requirements
concerning exhaustion of remedies under domestic law, contained in Article
46 of the Convention, do not apply.

5. That the note that the Government sent in reply in November 1988
provides no information whatever concerning the situation of the men who
disappeared, nor does it take issue with the facts as the petitioners reported
them to the Commission. To the contrary, it makes specific reference to
the statements made by the daughter of Mr. Martinez Cano to the effect
that they were not kidnapped by terrorists: "on the day the men were
taken, she saw a large number of Army troops in the lower reaches of the
ranch; some were changing out of their camouflage fatigues into civilian
clothing." Further, despite the time that has passed and the repeated
overtures made by the Commission, the Government of El Salvador has not
forwarded any further response to the facts denounced in this case.

6. That according to the text of the petition and the information supplied
by eyewitnesses to the events, Mr. Hernandez Martinez and Mr. Zarpate were
taken away by members of the Army who were seen while they were changing
out of uniform and putting on civilian clothes, thereby revealing the technique
used by members of the Armed Service to conceal their actions and avoid
the blame that they deserve for their part in committing acts that were
a deliberate violation of the victims' human rights.

7. That the Commission has repeatedly expressed its categorical repudiation
of the grave phenomenon of forced disappearance, stating in various documents
that:

... this practice is cruel and inhuman... forced disappearance not only
constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of liberty, but also a very severe
threat to the personal integrity, security and the very life of the victim.
[1]

8. That for its part, the General Assembly of the Organization of American
States has adopted numerous resolutions wherein it has underscored the
fact that countries where forced disappearances have occurred must put
an immediate end to this practice, and has urged the governments to take
the measures necessary to ascertain the situation of these people. The
General Assembly has also declared that the forced disappearance of persons
in the Americas is a crime against humanity. [2]

9. That in a judgment of July 29, 1988, in the Velasquez Rodriguez case,
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights stated the following:

The practice of disappearances, in addition to directly violating many
provisions of the Convention (...), constitutes a radical breach of the
treaty in that it shows a crass abandonment of the values which emanate
from the concept of human dignity and of the most basic principles of the
inter-American system and the Convention (...). [3]

10. That since the friendly settlement procedure provided for in Article
48.1.f. of the American Convention is not applicable because of the very
nature of the facts denounced, the Commission must comply with the provisions
of Article 50.1 of the Convention by issuing its conclusions and recommendations
on the petition filed for its consideration,

11. That the Government of El Salvador has not submitted observations
on Report N 13/91.

THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS,

RESOLVES:

1. To declare that the Government of El Salvador is responsible for
the violation of the right to life, the right to personal liberty and the
right to judicial protection (articles 4, 7, and 25 of the Convention)
of Mr. Francisco Hernandez Quintanilla, Mr. Juan Armando Martinez, and
Mr. Jose Antonio Zarpate Juarez, who disappeared on June 29, 1987, after
being seized at their place of work, the Bella Vista ranch, Guadalupe Canton,
Apopa, El Salvador, by soldiers of the First Infantry Brigade, according
to the communication received by the Commission on September 9, 1987.

2. To declare that the Government of El Salvador has not complied with
its obligations to respect the human rights and fundamental guarantees,
pursuant to Article 1 of the American Convention on Human Rights.

3. To make the following recommendations to the Government of El Salvador,
pursuant to Article 3.3 of the Convention and Article 47 of the Commission's
Regulations:

a. That it conduct a thorough, swift and rapid investigation into the
facts denounced in order to identify those responsible and bring them to
justice, so that they may receive the penalties that such grave conduct
warrants.

b. That it adopt the measures necessary to avoid a reoccurrence of such
events in the future.

c. That it make reparations for the consequences of the violation of
the aforementioned rights and pay the injured parties fair compensation.

4. Request the Government of El Salvador to inform the Commission regarding
the measures it is adopting in the present case, in accordance with the
recommendations formulated in paragraph 3 of the operative part of this
report.

5. Publish this report by including it in the Annual Report to be presented
to the General Assembly, in accordance with Article 48 of the Regulations
of the Commission; since the Government of El Salvador did not inform the
Commission of the measures it has taken to remedy the situation, within
the period prescribed in Report N 13/91.